Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review

Background, aim, and scopeLife cycle assessment (LCA) is becoming an increasingly widespread tool in support systems for environmental decision-making regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites. In this study, the use of LCA to compare the environmental impacts of different remediation technologies was reviewed. Remediation of a contaminated site reduces a local environmental problem, but at the same time, the remediation activities may cause negative environmental impacts on the local, regional, and global scale. LCA can be used to evaluate the inherent trade-off and to compare remediation scenarios in terms of their associated environmental burden.Main featuresAn overview of the assessed remediation technologies and contaminant types covered in the literature is presented. The LCA methodologies of the 12 reviewed studies were compared and discussed with special focus on their goal and scope definition and the applied impact assessment. The studies differ in their basic approach since some are prospective with focus on decision-support while others are retrospective aiming at a more detailed assessment of a completed remediation project.Literature reviewThe literature review showed that only few life cycle assessments have been conducted for in situ remediation technologies aimed at groundwater-threatening contaminants and that the majority of the existing literature focuses on ex situ remediation of contaminated soil. The functional unit applied in the studies is generally based on the volume of contaminated soil (or groundwater) to be treated; this is in four of the studies combined with a cleanup target for the remediation. While earlier studies often used more simplified impact assessment models, the more recent studies based their impact assessment on established methodologies covering the conventional set of impact categories. Ecotoxicity and human toxicity are the impact categories varying the most between these methodologies. Many of the reviewed studies address the importance of evaluating both primary and secondary impacts of site remediation. Primary impacts cover the local impacts related to residual contamination left in the subsurface during and after remediation and will vary between different remediation technologies due to different cleanup efficiencies and cleanup times. Secondary impacts are resource use and emissions arising in other stages of the life cycle of the remediation project.DiscussionAmong the reviewed literature, different approaches for modeling the long-term primary impacts of site contamination have been used. These include steady state models as well as dynamic models. Primary impacts are not solely a soil contamination or surface water issue, since many frequently occurring contaminants, such as chlorinated solvents, have the potential to migrate to the groundwater as well as evaporate to ambient air causing indoor climate problems. Impacts in the groundwater compartment are not included in established impact assessment methodologies; thus, the potential groundwater contamination impacts from residual contamination are difficult to address in LCA of site remediation. Due to the strong dependence on local conditions (sensitivity of groundwater aquifer, use for drinking water supply, etc.) a more site-specific impact assessment approach than what is normally applied in LCA is of relevance.Conclusions, recommendations, and perspectivesThe inclusion of groundwater impacts from soil contaminants requires the definition of an impact category covering human toxicity via groundwater or the inclusion of these impacts in the human toxicity impact category and the associated characterization models and normalization procedures. When evaluating groundwater impacts, attention should also be paid to potentially degradable contaminants forming metabolites of higher human toxic concern than the parent compound.

[1]  M. Hauschild Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle perspective. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  H. Métivier-Pignon,et al.  Life cycle assessment as a tool for controlling the development of technical activities: application to the remediation of a site contaminated by sulfur , 2004 .

[3]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Methodology, tools and case studies in product development , 2000 .

[4]  H. J. Henriksen,et al.  Assessment of exploitable groundwater resources of Denmark by use of ensemble resource indicators and a numerical groundwater–surface water model , 2008 .

[5]  K. Hungerbühler,et al.  Site-dependent fate assessment in LCA: Transport of heavy metals in soil , 2005 .

[6]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  Variability assessment of groundwater exposure to pesticides and its consideration in life-cycle assessment. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Cynthia A. Page,et al.  Life‐cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: Method and generic survey , 1999 .

[8]  James E. Smith Contaminant Hydrogeology, 2nd Edition , 1999 .

[9]  Jenny Norrman,et al.  LCA for Site Remediation: A Literature Review , 2004 .

[10]  Charles J. Newell,et al.  Performance of DNAPL Source Depletion Technologies at 59 Chlorinated Solvent‐Impacted Sites , 2006 .

[11]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA , 2007 .

[12]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation , 1999 .

[13]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Combined Use of Life Cycle Assessment and Groundwater Transport Modeling to Support Contaminated Site Management , 2004 .

[14]  G. Norris,et al.  TRACI the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts , 2002 .

[15]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Environmental assessment of products , 1997 .

[16]  C. H. Ward,et al.  Remediating chlorinated solvent source zones. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  W. Shiu,et al.  Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated dioxins, and dibenzofurans , 1992 .

[18]  Robert P. Vignes Use limited life-cycle analysis for environmental decision-making , 2001 .

[19]  Michael Hauschild,et al.  Gone…but not away—addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA , 2008 .

[20]  Réjean Samson,et al.  LCA of Ex-Situ Bioremediation of Diesel-Contaminated Soil (11 pp) , 2005 .

[21]  Pascal Lesage,et al.  Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models , 2005 .

[22]  A. Koehler Water use in LCA: managing the planet’s freshwater resources , 2008 .

[23]  Peter Bayer,et al.  Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. , 2006, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[24]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[25]  Christian Riber,et al.  Experience with the use of LCA-modelling (EASEWASTE) in waste management , 2007, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA.

[26]  Cynthia A. Page,et al.  Life‐cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: Case study , 1999 .

[27]  Martin Scheringer,et al.  Indicators for the exposure assessment of transformation products of organic micropollutants. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[28]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. , 2000, Chemosphere.